Proposed Details of Next Generation National Arts Standards Original Created February 23, 2011 Final Edits completed March 2, 2011 1. National Arts Standards should extend PreK-14. a. Extending to 14 (college sophomore) will enable us to work with our higher education colleagues to delineate college general education arts expectations that articulate with our Pre-12 expectations and might also apply to students in technical/community/junior colleges. b. Such general education expectations would provide the basis for new AP and other exams/courses in the arts, designed to enable students master and demonstrate their mastery of college-level work. c. We could then treat teacher standards in part as what students who major in an art form should learn beyond the core standards for all college-educated students. 2. National Arts Standards should include Big Ideas/Enduring Understandings. At least some of these will be shared across art forms. 3. National Arts Standards should help teachers focus their work, rather than providing an unrealistically broad scope. a. In other words, standards should make more choices for schools/teachers than recent eclectic curricula and standards have been willing/able to make. b. Thoughtful choices will cause some initial controversy, but ultimately be a great boost to our fields. 4. National Arts Standards should explicitly reflect embedded 21st century skills (we’ll need to look at both the Kay/Partnership and ISTE models). 5. National Arts Standards should be based on the expectation that students, regardless of later elective choices, learn a common body of skills/content in each art form Pre-8. 6. National Arts Standards should be grade-by-grade from PreK-8 in music and visual arts, and possibly other arts areas. a. To accommodate delivery systems that vary from district to district and state to state, committees will consider “leveling” standards – i.e., outlining successive levels of competence – in secondary electives strands in all of the arts, and possibly for all levels in dance and theatre. Designers must be sensitive to the possibility that substituting titles such as “emerging,” “novice,” and “intermediate” for specific grade level expectations might offer states/districts/schools that care less about arts learning the “wiggle room” to embrace a lower standard of expectation for their students. b. To create standards delineated grade by grade, we will need to incorporate specific content to an extent that the original standards avoided. i. We could create outlines of key categories of content, more specific than those provided in the NAEP framework. ii. Within those categories, we could provide “literature lists” and other helps. Such helps could be generated as part of a wiki-ish process. 7. National Arts Standards should be differentiated for electives. a. Standards should be developed for NCES elective courses/codes, as revised in 2010 with input from professional arts education organizations. b. Electives may begin at least as early as the introduction of elementary instrumental music, or as late as a college arts course to fulfill a general education elective. c. Elective standards should take the form of “value added” outcomes – they should delineate what students making a particular elective choice should learn beyond the core PreK-8 standards expected for all. 8. With the help of higher education/research colleagues including College Board, we should base grade level (or possible cluster) expectations on what research reveals students can do when provided with quality instruction over time. 9. We should validate National Arts Standards’ research-based-but-still-somewhat-theoretical expectations by examining student work uploaded by skilled teachers – perhaps using wiki (or EdSteps?) tools – that demonstrate what well-taught children actually do, and also provide the basis for benchmarking (anchor sets), pre-service and in-service teacher training. a. This student work might be based on published indicators, or even on common assessments that distill discrete expectations into more complex performances with scoring tools. b. The next generation of www.CTcurriculum.org, which will be completed by spring 2011, is one tool that could facilitate this process.
Original Created February 23, 2011
Final Edits completed March 2, 2011
1. National Arts Standards should extend PreK-14.
a. Extending to 14 (college sophomore) will enable us to work with our higher education colleagues to delineate college general education arts expectations that articulate with our Pre-12 expectations and might also apply to students in technical/community/junior colleges.
b. Such general education expectations would provide the basis for new AP and other exams/courses in the arts, designed to enable students master and demonstrate their mastery of college-level work.
c. We could then treat teacher standards in part as what students who major in an art form should learn beyond the core standards for all college-educated students.
2. National Arts Standards should include Big Ideas/Enduring Understandings. At least some of these will be shared across art forms.
3. National Arts Standards should help teachers focus their work, rather than providing an unrealistically broad scope.
a. In other words, standards should make more choices for schools/teachers than recent eclectic curricula and standards have been willing/able to make.
b. Thoughtful choices will cause some initial controversy, but ultimately be a great boost to our fields.
4. National Arts Standards should explicitly reflect embedded 21st century skills (we’ll need to look at both the Kay/Partnership and ISTE models).
5. National Arts Standards should be based on the expectation that students, regardless of later elective choices, learn a common body of skills/content in each art form Pre-8.
6. National Arts Standards should be grade-by-grade from PreK-8 in music and visual arts, and possibly other arts areas.
a. To accommodate delivery systems that vary from district to district and state to state, committees will consider “leveling” standards – i.e., outlining successive levels of competence – in secondary electives strands in all of the arts, and possibly for all levels in dance and theatre. Designers must be sensitive to the possibility that substituting titles such as “emerging,” “novice,” and “intermediate” for specific grade level expectations might offer states/districts/schools that care less about arts learning the “wiggle room” to embrace a lower standard of expectation for their students.
b. To create standards delineated grade by grade, we will need to incorporate specific content to an extent that the original standards avoided.
i. We could create outlines of key categories of content, more specific than those provided in the NAEP framework.
ii. Within those categories, we could provide “literature lists” and other helps. Such helps could be generated as part of a wiki-ish process.
7. National Arts Standards should be differentiated for electives.
a. Standards should be developed for NCES elective courses/codes, as revised in 2010 with input from professional arts education organizations.
b. Electives may begin at least as early as the introduction of elementary instrumental music, or as late as a college arts course to fulfill a general education elective.
c. Elective standards should take the form of “value added” outcomes – they should delineate what students making a particular elective choice should learn beyond the core PreK-8 standards expected for all.
8. With the help of higher education/research colleagues including College Board, we should base grade level (or possible cluster) expectations on what research reveals students can do when provided with quality instruction over time.
9. We should validate National Arts Standards’ research-based-but-still-somewhat-theoretical expectations by examining student work uploaded by skilled teachers – perhaps using wiki (or EdSteps?) tools – that demonstrate what well-taught children actually do, and also provide the basis for benchmarking (anchor sets), pre-service and in-service teacher training.
a. This student work might be based on published indicators, or even on common assessments that distill discrete expectations into more complex performances with scoring tools.
b. The next generation of www.CTcurriculum.org, which will be completed by spring 2011, is one tool that could facilitate this process.